Joseph Cristin v. Everglades Correctional Institution and Division of Risk Management

Jerry Hayden and Tony Caula (Miami, FL) (Workers’ Compensation) Joseph Cristin v. Everglades Correctional Institution and Division of Risk Management.  The issues addressed at Final Hearing included compensability of an unexplained syncopal fall that occurred while the Claimant was working as a correctional officer, as well as multiple claims for medical benefits and reimbursement of approximately $400,000.00 in associated medical bills.  The Employer argued that the major contributing cause of the Claimant’s syncopal fall was a pre-existing prostate cancer and associated Gerson Therapy regimen consisting of a vegan diet and multiple daily coffee enemas.  The Claimant argued that the Employer did not establish a pre-existing condition which contributed to the syncopal fall, or, in the alternative, that the work-place created an increased hazard that contributed to the injuries resulting from the fall.  The Claimant provided multiple theories of increased hazard, including stress/freight due verbal reprimands from higher-ranking officers, the hardness of the construction materials used in the walls and floor at the scene of the fall, and that a co-worker came in contact with the Claimant as he fell allegedly increasing his impact force.  Due to a conflict of medical opinion between each party’s IME physician, the Court ordered the appointment of an Expert Medical Advisor to address the issue of causation.  The EMA opined that the major contributing cause of the syncopal fall was a vasovagal event that occurred in the context of malnutrition related to a Gerson regimen intended to treat pre-existing prostate cancer, which was followed for more than two years prior to the fall.  The EMA based his findings on differential diagnosis and a review of records obtained from the Claimant’s primary care provider reflecting continued complaints of low energy and weakness while on the Gerson regimen.  Moreover, the EMA specifically rejected the notion that the Claimant’s syncopal fall was the result of freight, nervousness or anxiety.  Finding that there was no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the Court afforded the EMA’s opinion regarding major contributing cause a presumption of correctness and found that the major contributing cause of the syncopal fall was the Claimant’s pre-existing prostate cancer and associated Gerson regimen.  At Final Hearing, the Employer presented evidence from multiple co-workers establishing that on the date of the accident the Claimant had not been reprimanded.  The Employer also provided evidence that the accident site contained concrete masonry unit block walls and ceramic tile over a concrete floor.  The Employer argued that the materials found at the accident site are similar to what the Claimant was exposed to during non-employment life, including ceramic tiles and a concrete wall exterior in the Claimant’s home, and concrete flooring and walls at locations frequented by the Claimant.  The Employer presented testimony from an expert forensic structural engineer who testified that whether the Claimant had fallen at work or other locations outside of the work-place, the impact force would be the same, all other things being equal.  The Court accepted the testimony from the Employer’s expert and found that the building materials at the workplace did not create an increased hazard contributing to the injuries resulting from the syncopal fall, and accepted the EMA’s opinion that stress/freight did not contribute to the fall.  The Court also found that no evidence to support the Claimant theory that his co-worker coming into contact with his body as he fell resulted in any increased impact force.  Accepting the EMA’s opinion regarding major contributing cause, and rejecting all of the Claimant’s theories of increased hazard, the Court denied compensability of the syncopal fall and resulting injuries, as well as all collateral benefits.  The Claimant filed a Notice of Appeal.